Re: refining closure text for rdfs-isDefinedBy-semantics

On 2002-06-10 20:28, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:

> 
> At 11:01 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:
>> A couple of open issues come to mind...
>> 
>> - do we formally give a name to a schema resource rather than let
>> different communities define them (this request has surfaced from the DC
>> community working on Registries).  As was mentioned on the telecon, this
>> approach may be useful for clarifying the relationship between rdf
>> Schemas and Web Ontologies (e.g. rdfs:Schema subclassof web:Ontology)
>> 
>> my suggestion would be 'yes'
>> 
>> - do we formalize the range rdfs:isDefinedBy to be one of these schema
>> resources
> 
> I'm a little uncomfortable with what this might be saying, but I'd be happy
> if we can describe the schema resource referenced by rdfs:isDefinedBy as:
> 
> [[
> An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary
> (i.e. about some RDF properties and classes).
> ]]
> 
> What I want to avoid doing here is (a) creating an idea that a schema is
> somehow apart from the wider body of RDF data, and (b) that a schema
> contains only statements based on the RDFS-defined vocabulary (rdfs:range,
> rdfs:domain, etc.).

If I understand correctly what Graham is saying here, I agree ;-)

I.e. we would not say

   rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:range rdfs:Schema .

Rather, we'd say (as is presently defined)

   rdfs:isDefinedBy rdfs:range rdf:Resource .

and then for a particular case

  :someTerm rdfs:isDefinedBy :someResource .
  :someResource a rdfs:Schema .

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Tuesday, 11 June 2002 04:12:03 UTC